Thailand facing acid test of its democratic principles

[webfact]

EDITORIAL
Thailand facing acid test of its democratic principles
The Nation

We have the chance to break a historic cycle of violent protest and usher in a new era of peaceful and principled politics

BANGKOK: -- The newspaper images from Sunday's massive rally in Bangkok spoke loud and clear. People from all walks of life and every political hue shared one goal: to exercise their right to protest against an "unjust" government. The massive rally was one of the largest in Thai history, but the tens of thousands who gathered proved they could do so in peace, regardless of numbers. It was an especially impressive moment in Thai politics, proving that mass protests against the government don't have to end in violence.

Yet any admiration for Sunday's controlled demonstration is fading fast following protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban's announcement of escalation in the goals. A day after the so-called "million-man march", the former Democrat Party Cabinet minister led protesters to government ministries in a bid to topple the Yingluck Shinawatra administration. The demonstrators stormed parts of the Finance and Foreign ministries, a move that dismayed many observers, including their supporters and some in the Democrat Party. The seizure of government offices tarnished the image of the until-then restrained protest.

Even though Suthep has stressed that protesters occupied the ministries without causing any damage, their actions are unlawful. Preventing government officials from working is a bad move. Veteran journalist Somkiat Onwimon, a critic of the government and the "Thaksin regime", has called Suthep impatient and questioned his ability as a leader. "A man who wants to achieve victory by civil disobedience must be very patient," he said. Social critic Sulak Sivaraksa questioned whether Suthep genuinely understands the history of civil disobedience as a passive and principled resistance. Suthep seems to be deaf to the criticism, though, hearing only the roar of a crowd bent on "victory". "I do this for the people, not for the Democrat Party," he said after the seizure of the ministries.

It was also puzzling when Suthep said he would continue the protest even if Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra resigned or dissolved the House. His only goal now is to get rid of the "Thaksin regime", though the rallies started as a campaign solely against the amnesty bill. Suthep should know better than to force the issue in this way, having experienced first-hand the violent political protests by red shirts in 2010.

These latest protests are taking a typical direction for anyone familiar with Thai history. An unjust and corrupt government brings protesters out on the streets, hoping to bring about change with prolonged rallies. But it ends in bloodshed or a military coup. The people's protest against General Suchinda Kraprayoon ended with "Bloody May", while the People's Assembly for Democracy rallies against the Thaksin Shinawatra government eventually saw democracy struck down by a coup. The latest incident in this cycle of violence saw more than 90 people killed during the 2010 protests by Thaksin's red-shirt supporters in Bangkok.

Not surprisingly, then, there's a feeling of déjà vu among Thais right now. They recognise the pattern: one side is egged on by leaders who want to escalate conflict. The protesters march and seize or destroy property. The government declares a state of emergency and protesters - some perhaps armed - clash with police. The government, finding it difficult to function, charges protest leaders with breaking the law, and events proceed inevitably towards violence.

Adding more fuel to the fire this time is that the two sides are holding parallel rallies. The red-shirt United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship has vowed to stay put in support of the government, claiming that they too are fighting for democracy and a rightfully elected government.

Our biggest challenge now is to learn from, rather than repeat, history.


-- The Nation 2013-11-27

[cloghead]

Acid Test??? Now that brings back some fond memories. Maybe everyone in all the parties should participate and things would be all love, hugs 'n' kisses...

http://dangerousminds.net/comments/can_you_pass_the_acid_test

[wedders]

And repeat history they will, democracy is still going through birthing pains here, and the Thai electorate is too naive to understand the extent to which they are being manipulated by individuals intent either on achieving power despite the results from the ballot box, or those looking after selfish family interests to preserve the dynasty.

The real threat comes longer term, with a social schism within Thai society that will be very difficult to repair.

The middle classes and various elites feel threatened by Thaksin's 'neue politik'. The working classes are beginning to get a sense of the power they wield at the ballot box. It's the same old story, repeated ad nauseum throughout the world in developing countries trying to achieve some version of democracy. But like many a recalcitrant child, Thailand is unlikely to learn from the mistakes of others, and will continue to make its own.

Just to refer back to the original excuse for escalation, the West and its various democracies have plenty of wholly elected second chambers. I've heard no one here suggest they are somehow 'undemocratic'.

[JRSoul]

And repeat history they will, democracy is still going through birthing pains here, and the Thai electorate is too naive to understand the extent to which they are being manipulated by individuals intent either on achieving power despite the results from the ballot box, or those looking after selfish family interests to preserve the dynasty.

The real threat comes longer term, with a social schism within Thai society that will be very difficult to repair.

The middle classes and various elites feel threatened by Thaksin's 'neue politik'. The working classes are beginning to get a sense of the power they wield at the ballot box. It's the same old story, repeated ad nauseum throughout the world in developing countries trying to achieve some version of democracy. But like many a recalcitrant child, Thailand is unlikely to learn from the mistakes of others, and will continue to make its own.

Just to refer back to the original excuse for escalation, the West and its various democracies have plenty of wholly elected second chambers. I've heard no one here suggest they are somehow 'undemocratic'.

Let me be the first, then. Australia's senate was once described an "undemocratic swill" by an Oz PM (Keating), because senators from the smaller states can be elected with >10% of the votes a larger population state senator requires.

But more to the point, wasn't the major difference allowing close family members of MPs to become senators? Is a politicised or non-political senate preferable?

[wedders]

What, because of political apathy and less than 10% turnout, or because of a plethora of candidates and a first-past-the-post system? If either of those, there is nothing inherently undemocratic about it, although improvements could obviously be made.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[JRSoul]

What, because of political apathy and less than 10% turnout, or because of a plethora of candidates and a first-past-the-post system? If either of those, there is nothing inherently undemocratic about it, although improvements could obviously be made.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

No and no. The states each have the same number of senators (as in the US?) but some states have much smaller populations. So the number of votes to be elected there is much smaller.

Where most senators represent a political party (as PTP would like) a small group from a small state can hold the balance of power, and demand concessions for their votes.

At the time the quote was made Sen Harradine (Tasmania) was in such a position and insisted that oz foreign aid should meet his religious principles, birth control being the biggest problem. That a man elected with so few votes could hold such power is not only undemocratic, it is reprehensible.

[Swiss1960]

What, because of political apathy and less than 10% turnout, or because of a plethora of candidates and a first-past-the-post system? If either of those, there is nothing inherently undemocratic about it, although improvements could obviously be made.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

No and no. The states each have the same number of senators (as in the US?) but some states have much smaller populations. So the number of votes to be elected there is much smaller.

Where most senators represent a political party (as PTP would like) a small group from a small state can hold the balance of power, and demand concessions for their votes.

At the time the quote was made Sen Harradine (Tasmania) was in such a position and insisted that oz foreign aid should meet his religious principles, birth control being the biggest problem. That a man elected with so few votes could hold such power is not only undemocratic, it is reprehensible.

That is completely wrong and you definitely do not understand the democratic principle behind electing equal numbers of Senators per district into the second chamber of the parliament. Switzerland has the same principle where two deputies per district (Kanton) are elected into the Council of State, the second chamber of the Swiss parliament.

This chamber ENSURES that the big district (with huge numbers of people) can not unfairly impose laws and regulations onto smaller districts and that is one key issue in democratic principles. Even in the Swiss popular vote system, changes to our constitution must not only be approved by the majority of people voting, but also by the majority of districts. Failure to reach the majority in either of both will be rejection of the issue that was at vote. That is democratic and in NO way reprehensible.

If the voters in the district of Tasmania have chosen to elect such a person, that is their choice and that is life democracy

[JRSoul]

What, because of political apathy and less than 10% turnout, or because of a plethora of candidates and a first-past-the-post system? If either of those, there is nothing inherently undemocratic about it, although improvements could obviously be made.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

No and no. The states each have the same number of senators (as in the US?) but some states have much smaller populations. So the number of votes to be elected there is much smaller.

Where most senators represent a political party (as PTP would like) a small group from a small state can hold the balance of power, and demand concessions for their votes.

At the time the quote was made Sen Harradine (Tasmania) was in such a position and insisted that oz foreign aid should meet his religious principles, birth control being the biggest problem. That a man elected with so few votes could hold such power is not only undemocratic, it is reprehensible.

That is completely wrong and you definitely do not understand the democratic principle behind electing equal numbers of Senators per district into the second chamber of the parliament. Switzerland has the same principle where two deputies per district (Kanton) are elected into the Council of State, the second chamber of the Swiss parliament.

This chamber ENSURES that the big district (with huge numbers of people) can not unfairly impose laws and regulations onto smaller districts and that is one key issue in democratic principles. Even in the Swiss popular vote system, changes to our constitution must not only be approved by the majority of people voting, but also by the majority of districts. Failure to reach the majority in either of both will be rejection of the issue that was at vote. That is democratic and in NO way reprehensible.

If the voters in the district of Tasmania have chosen to elect such a person, that is their choice and that is life democracy

If there is a reasonable balance in the size of electorates, I see no problem. But what is democratic about one person having 10 times more representation than another?

Then in a politicised senate, a man elected with a few thousand votes can steer policy on aid from a country of 20+ million. In this case, the supply or even discussion of use of condoms in countries being ravaged by AIDS was banned because that man believes a few words in a 2000 year old book of myths.

[Swiss1960]

^^ well, if one man alone can get a whole parliament to stop working properly, then the flaw would have to be found in the democratic system of NZ

But we are getting off topic...

This guy Suthep... I fully agree with the OP and this guy is starting to speak and behave like many dictators we have seen in the in the last 100 years... from Franco to Hitler to Lenin to Stalin to Mao... all of them started with small "popular votes" overthrowing the respective governments and finally ending as the dictators of their countries...

Unfortunately, at present this guy is the bigger risk for the well-being of Thailand than the whole corrupt parties and people on both sides of the political system in Thailand... unfortunately the OP is right and violence is looming down the road... and the chance for another intervention by the army is very likely, if this person Suthep does not stop very soon.

[wedders]

 

 

What, because of political apathy and less than 10% turnout, or because of a plethora of candidates and a first-past-the-post system? If either of those, there is nothing inherently undemocratic about it, although improvements could obviously be made.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

No and no. The states each have the same number of senators (as in the US?) but some states have much smaller populations. So the number of votes to be elected there is much smaller.

Where most senators represent a political party (as PTP would like) a small group from a small state can hold the balance of power, and demand concessions for their votes.

At the time the quote was made Sen Harradine (Tasmania) was in such a position and insisted that oz foreign aid should meet his religious principles, birth control being the biggest problem. That a man elected with so few votes could hold such power is not only undemocratic, it is reprehensible.

 

 

That is completely wrong and you definitely do not understand the democratic principle behind electing equal numbers of Senators per district into the second chamber of the parliament. Switzerland has the same principle where two deputies per district (Kanton) are elected into the Council of State, the second chamber of the Swiss parliament. 

 

This chamber ENSURES that the big district (with huge numbers of people) can not unfairly impose laws and regulations onto smaller districts and that is one key issue in democratic principles. Even in the Swiss popular vote system, changes to our constitution must not only be approved by the majority of people voting, but also by the majority of districts. Failure to reach the majority in either of both will be rejection of the issue that was at vote. That is democratic and in NO way reprehensible. 

 

If the voters in the district of Tasmania have chosen to elect such a person, that is their choice and that is life democracy 

 

If there is a reasonable balance in the size of electorates, I see no problem. But what is democratic about one person having 10 times more representation than another?

 

Then in a politicised senate, a man elected with a few thousand votes can steer policy on aid from a country of 20+ million. In this case, the supply or even discussion of use of condoms in countries being ravaged by AIDS was banned because that man believes a few words in a 2000 year old book of myths.

 

There are merits to both opinions and both methods. But that isn't the point! A political democratic system isn't some kind of immutable, pre-defined structure with no alternatives. Each nation selects a system it considers best suits its national interests, as well as those of democracy.

From that point on, the duly elected government abides by those rules, and the people who put them in power in the first place - if they are unhappy for whatever reason - have the option of voting in a new government next time around, with policies for change that they prefer.

THAT is democracy. Not a minority that purports to speak on everyone's behalf taking to the streets to force a government into submission every time it does something they don't like. And I'm referring to shirts of all hues here.

We can debate for as long as you like which methods represent the best *form* of democracy in a nation, but you cannot deny that a wholly elected second chamber is an inherently democratic mechanism - even if it needs fine-tuning. Look at the Lords in the UK. Changes will come to our anachronistic system with its (minority) proportion of unelected peers and bishops etc. But in the meantime it is better than nothing. Most accept that reform is overdue. But we're not about to occupy Canterbury Cathedral or the House of Lords. It's up to the people to vote for the government that prioritises such a change. In the meantime, if we don't like it... tough luck!

[Spare]

Yes, there are minor incidents, but this protest is a peaceful one. Unlike the Red shirts protest which is full of armed Men in Black.

http://2bangkok.com/catching-the-red-shirt-gunmen.html

[binjalin]

Suthep is delirious in his own 'granduer' seeing himself as some great 'leader'

but a ' Aung San Suu Kyi' or 'Mandala' he is not

in fact isn't that Thailand's problem? they don't have one great person, honest and true, who they can rally around and believe in

Edited November 27, 2013 by binjalin

[DocN]

It is facing a test of ...WHAT???

[seajae]

And repeat history they will, democracy is still going through birthing pains here, and the Thai electorate is too naive to understand the extent to which they are being manipulated by individuals intent either on achieving power despite the results from the ballot box, or those looking after selfish family interests to preserve the dynasty.

The real threat comes longer term, with a social schism within Thai society that will be very difficult to repair.

The middle classes and various elites feel threatened by Thaksin's 'neue politik'. The working classes are beginning to get a sense of the power they wield at the ballot box. It's the same old story, repeated ad nauseum throughout the world in developing countries trying to achieve some version of democracy. But like many a recalcitrant child, Thailand is unlikely to learn from the mistakes of others, and will continue to make its own.

Just to refer back to the original excuse for escalation, the West and its various democracies have plenty of wholly elected second chambers. I've heard no one here suggest they are somehow 'undemocratic'.

yes they do but they are not designed purely to put your family members into parliament, also the voters are not paid by them to vote or bribed in anyway. If Thailand exhibited the same values as the west then there would be no need for concern but it is all financial gain here and what one person wants, where in the west is a wanted criminal allowed to run the country, get a passport and associate with the police, government officials without recourse. These laws were and are being used for thaksins gain only, it does not benefoit the country, it stiffles it.

[HoudiniXLogic]

Acid Test? we need to know just exactly how many micrograms are going to be distributed to each protestor. 1000 would be enough

[Spare]

And repeat history they will, democracy is still going through birthing pains here, and the Thai electorate is too naive to understand the extent to which they are being manipulated by individuals intent either on achieving power despite the results from the ballot box, or those looking after selfish family interests to preserve the dynasty.

The real threat comes longer term, with a social schism within Thai society that will be very difficult to repair.

The middle classes and various elites feel threatened by Thaksin's 'neue politik'. The working classes are beginning to get a sense of the power they wield at the ballot box. It's the same old story, repeated ad nauseum throughout the world in developing countries trying to achieve some version of democracy. But like many a recalcitrant child, Thailand is unlikely to learn from the mistakes of others, and will continue to make its own.

Just to refer back to the original excuse for escalation, the West and its various democracies have plenty of wholly elected second chambers. I've heard no one here suggest they are somehow 'undemocratic'.

yes they do but they are not designed purely to put your family members into parliament, also the voters are not paid by them to vote or bribed in anyway. If Thailand exhibited the same values as the west then there would be no need for concern but it is all financial gain here and what one person wants, where in the west is a wanted criminal allowed to run the country, get a passport and associate with the police, government officials without recourse. These laws were and are being used for thaksins gain only, it does not benefoit the country, it stiffles it.

Which group of people do you think is more likely to bring in their whole family into parliament. The poor, the middle class, or THE ELITE.

I think the ELITE have shot themslekve on the foot by stopping such law.

No wonder no one want to be officially married anymore. Not Thiksin, not Yingluck, not Chuan, and not SUTHEP (especially Suthep).

They all have their wide/biological kids/family/whatever you want to call them, in the parliament, under different surnames.

[khunsiam]

And repeat history they will, democracy is still going through birthing pains here, and the Thai electorate is too naive to understand the extent to which they are being manipulated by individuals intent either on achieving power despite the results from the ballot box, or those looking after selfish family interests to preserve the dynasty.

The real threat comes longer term, with a social schism within Thai society that will be very difficult to repair.

The middle classes and various elites feel threatened by Thaksin's 'neue politik'. The working classes are beginning to get a sense of the power they wield at the ballot box. It's the same old story, repeated ad nauseum throughout the world in developing countries trying to achieve some version of democracy. But like many a recalcitrant child, Thailand is unlikely to learn from the mistakes of others, and will continue to make its own.

Just to refer back to the original excuse for escalation, the West and its various democracies have plenty of wholly elected second chambers. I've heard no one here suggest they are somehow 'undemocratic'.

yes they do but they are not designed purely to put your family members into parliament, also the voters are not paid by them to vote or bribed in anyway. If Thailand exhibited the same values as the west then there would be no need for concern but it is all financial gain here and what one person wants, where in the west is a wanted criminal allowed to run the country, get a passport and associate with the police, government officials without recourse. These laws were and are being used for thaksins gain only, it does not benefoit the country, it stiffles it.

In Italy, Berlusconi.

[wedders]

In Italy, Berlusconi.

Democracy is ensuring that Berlusconi is getting quite a thrashing at the moment, without the need for street demos and occupations. The 2014 budget has been passed despite his opposition, following the disintegration of the centre-right grouping he led.

[silent]

Acid Test? we need to know just exactly how many micrograms are going to be distributed to each protestor. 1000 would be enough

Timothy?.........Timothy Leary? So this is where you and Lucy came to stay........... That explains things here now.

[Thai at Heart]

new era of peaceful and principled politics

Pull the other one...

[Thai at Heart]

And repeat history they will, democracy is still going through birthing pains here, and the Thai electorate is too naive to understand the extent to which they are being manipulated by individuals intent either on achieving power despite the results from the ballot box, or those looking after selfish family interests to preserve the dynasty.

The real threat comes longer term, with a social schism within Thai society that will be very difficult to repair.

The middle classes and various elites feel threatened by Thaksin's 'neue politik'. The working classes are beginning to get a sense of the power they wield at the ballot box. It's the same old story, repeated ad nauseum throughout the world in developing countries trying to achieve some version of democracy. But like many a recalcitrant child, Thailand is unlikely to learn from the mistakes of others, and will continue to make its own.

Just to refer back to the original excuse for escalation, the West and its various democracies have plenty of wholly elected second chambers. I've heard no one here suggest they are somehow 'undemocratic'.

Let me be the first, then. Australia's senate was once described an "undemocratic swill" by an Oz PM (Keating), because senators from the smaller states can be elected with >10% of the votes a larger population state senator requires.

But more to the point, wasn't the major difference allowing close family members of MPs to become senators? Is a politicised or non-political senate preferable?

I would say that the way it is now for Thailand in terms of representatives is perfect. Some elected some appointed.

[wwest5829]

What, because of political apathy and less than 10% turnout, or because of a plethora of candidates and a first-past-the-post system? If either of those, there is nothing inherently undemocratic about it, although improvements could obviously be made.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

No and no. The states each have the same number of senators (as in the US?) but some states have much smaller populations. So the number of votes to be elected there is much smaller.

Where most senators represent a political party (as PTP would like) a small group from a small state can hold the balance of power, and demand concessions for their votes.

At the time the quote was made Sen Harradine (Tasmania) was in such a position and insisted that oz foreign aid should meet his religious principles, birth control being the biggest problem. That a man elected with so few votes could hold such power is not only undemocratic, it is reprehensible.

Confirm U.S, has two Senators for each of the 50 states regardless of the state size or population. Originally, these Senators were appointed by the states. Through Constitutional Amendment, the Senators are directly elected by the voting populace.

[HoudiniXLogic]

Acid Test? we need to know just exactly how many micrograms are going to be distributed to each protestor. 1000 would be enough

Timothy?.........Timothy Leary? So this is where you and Lucy came to stay........... That explains things here now.

I got a date with lucy